AMC and Blueberry

[Randardo]

So I sent a letter to the AMC, needless to say I was VERY thorough with atch'd documentation and photo's... I've yet to hear a response....

Greetings,
Not sure to whom I should address this, but there’s an ongoing issue regarding the appropriate use of Blueberry (Minister) Island on Lake Winnipesaukee. As a Winnipesaukee boater it my (and others) understanding that Blueberry Island is off limits to any and all based upon the Keep Out, No Trespassing, Violators Will Be Prosecuted signs posted all over the Island.
I certainly understand what these terms mean both fundamentally and legally. I’d go so far as to say most if not all boaters respect these signs, along with No Wake Zones, No Rafting Zones, Idle Speed Zones, etc found elsewhere on the lake. Most boaters pride themselves abiding by and at times enforcing these directives when they see other violating them.
Here’s where Blueberry Island becomes contentious. No Trespassing, Keep Out is very clear language, more so Violators Will Be Prosecuted, except if you’re from Three Mile Island… If you are you have full use of the Island… Boaters don’t see it this way and there’s no clear language, or from my research, legal documented authority for Three Mile Island visitors to be on the island, it’s all hearsay…
It’s sad to see trash on Blueberry Island as we’ve seen in the past, just last week canoes were tied to trees on the Island while others were “stuffed” into the blueberry bushes. Leave no trace, minimal impact, take only pictures, leave only footprints…
My goal is to have the AMC to clearly define Blueberry Island use. Therefore, I called the AMC on 13 Jul 23 and was referred to your director of communications who then referred me to Nicky Pizzo. My conversation with Nicky was very odd, she spoke from a position of authority with zero comprehension or knowledge of the subject matter. She mentioned that she just visited Three Mile Island for the first time but had no knowledge of Blueberry Island. No clarity here.
I called NH Marine Patrol to understand their role if any, the officer began his response with “It is our understanding….” No clarity there.
I called the Moultonborough Assessors Office to see if they had any insight regarding AMC ownership or stewardship of Blueberry Island, there’s no mention of the AMC on any tax record or associated documents regarding Blueberry Island. No clarity there.
There are unofficial discussions on the Forum regarding Blueberry Island. https://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums...ad.php?t=23618
The Three Mile Island FAQ discusses Blueberry Island. https://www.threemileislandcamp.org/faqs
Activities
What types of activities are available at Three Mile Island?
Explore the Lake:
Three Mile is located at the northern end of Lake Winnipesaukee, a 26-mile-long lake with over 240 islands in the heart of New Hampshire's Lake District. There are many hour-to day-long canoe trips around the lake, only limited by the skill and imagination of the canoeist. Popular destinations include Blueberry Island, with a wide, sandy beach and occasional Eagles' nest with eaglets, and Stonedam Island, a natural preserve owned by the Lakes Region Conservation Trust. Three Mile has a small fleet of sunfish, kayaks, and small sailboats available for guests. Fishing and sailing are also popular.
Found the Stonedam Island comment very interesting, clearly states owned by LRCT with a link to provide further information, nothing regarding Blueberry Island however.
I reached out directly to Three Mile Island:
Lindsay Cartmell and Alex Wells
From:tmimanager2@gmail.com
Cc:manager@3mile.org
Mon, Jul 17 at 6:35 PM
Hi Randy!
Thanks so much for reaching out! To the best of my knowledge, the AMC does not own Blueberry Island, but helps steward the island in coordination with the owners of the island.
I hope this helps!
Best,
Alex Wells
TMI Assistant Manager
On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 4:15 PM wrote:
Lindsay,
I'm a boater on Winni and I'm trying to figure out the relationship between 3 Mile and Blueberry, does the AMC own it?
Thanks much!
There is one obscure sign on the Island (photo atch’d) “Private Property Appalachian Mountain Club”. Does this mean the AMC owns the property? That would contradict the property record (atch’d).
Signage and language to the effect of…. Would go a long way to clarifying for all.
Private Property, off limits to Winnipesaukee boaters… No Trespassing with the exception of AMC Staff and guests residing at Three Mile Island per cooperation between Blueberry Island Owners and the AMC.
I respectfully ask someone at the AMC take this on and provide clear guidance to all, and post clear signage on the Island.

Regards,
Randy

[camp guy]

Not ever having done much boating in the area of Blueberry Island, nor that of Three Mile Island, and only based on what is presented by Randy on this Forum, I'd say the gentleman has a valid point, and somebody who knows something ought to respond to clear the air.

[P-3 Guy]

Blueberry Island is owned by a family trust ("Priscilla Lodge Blueberry Island Trust"). There has been a decades long relationship between the trust families and Three Mile Island Camp. There is currently a written agreement between the trust and the Appalachian Mountain Club that grants exclusive use of Blueberry Island to Three Mile Island campers and staff, when members of the trust's families are not using the island. Use by any other parties is considered to be trespassing.

Unfortunately, I know from many years of personal experience that despite the signs, trespassing is a frequent occurrence, and politely asking trespassers to leave the island is often met with hostile and disrespectful reactions (and sometimes, made up stories: "I know the owner and have permission," or something similar). To all those who respect the Private Property signs, thank you.

Edited to add that I believe Nicky Pizzo is new to her position, so it's no surprise that she has no knowledge of Blueberry Island or the agreement between the trust and the AMC.

[LoveLakeLife]

A piece of trivium: it was also known as Wilmington Island as per a sign nailed to a tree near the other signs. A sure stumper in a lake trivia game.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[Randardo]

To you comment "There is currently a written agreement...." is my point of contention, I've heard this from numerous sources, yet from my research no one know of the location of this so called document, hence my hearsay comment. I'm just asking for clarity and full transparency from the AMC, doubt I'll get it, but that's my hope.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Randardo

"I'm just asking for clarity and full transparency from the AMC, doubt I'll get it, but that's my hope.

Why?

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Randardo

To you comment "There is currently a written agreement...." is my point of contention, I've heard this from numerous sources, yet from my research no one know of the location of this so called document, hence my hearsay comment. I'm just asking for clarity and full transparency from the AMC, doubt I'll get it, but that's my hope.

I'm an AMC volunteer at Three Mile Island Camp who for more than 10 years has been the direct AMC/TMI liaison with the trust representative. I have a copy of the written agreement, as do the trust representative and the appropriate AMC staff, including the management team on Three Mile Island. My previous post provided clarity and full transparency. What more do you need? As you have pointed out, there are "signs posted all over the Island" stating PRIVATE PROPERTY - NO TRESPASSING. How can it be any clearer? The written use agreement, similar to a lease or rental agreement, isn't something that would normally be made available for public inspection. It's a private agreement between two parties. It isn't filed at the Carroll County Registry of Deeds, but you can certainly easily verify the ownership of Blueberry Island by doing an online search at the registry's website. Use the search term "Priscilla Lodge Blueberry Island Trust." You can do a title history search if you like. Ancestors of the Anderson, North and Gray families have had an ownership interest in Blueberry Island going back to the 1800s.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by P-3 Guy

I'm an AMC volunteer at Three Mile Island Camp who for more than 10 years has been the direct AMC/TMI liaison with the trust representative. I have a copy of the written agreement, as do the trust representative and the appropriate AMC staff, including the management team on Three Mile Island. My previous post provided clarity and full transparency. What more do you need? As you have pointed out, there are "signs posted all over the Island" stating PRIVATE PROPERTY - NO TRESPASSING. How can it be any clearer? The written use agreement, similar to a lease or rental agreement, isn't something that would normally be made available for public inspection. It's a private agreement between two parties. It isn't filed at the Carroll County Registry of Deeds, but you can certainly easily verify the ownership of Blueberry Island by doing an online search at the registry's website. Use the search term "Priscilla Lodge Blueberry Island Trust." You can do a title history search if you like. Ancestors of the Anderson, North and Gray families have had an ownership interest in Blueberry Island going back to the 1800s.

Thank you for this.

There was a thread similar to this on the iBoat Facebook page a couple weeks ago, and I. Just. Don't. Understand.

My MO is if it's not clearly public, or if explicit permission hasn't been given, stay off.

I know NH law says different, but, as I said on that thread, I draw a clear line between legality and courtesy.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Thank you for this.

There was a thread similar to this on the iBoat Facebook page a couple weeks ago, and I. Just. Don't. Understand.

My MO is if it's not clearly public, or if explicit permission hasn't been given, stay off.

I know NH law says different, but, as I said on that thread, I draw a clear line between legality and courtesy.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

I am not aware of any part of New Hampshire law that allows for unfettered public access, even for recreational purposes, to private property when the property owner has explicitly told the public by means of posted signs stating "Private Property - Keep Off - No Trespassing" or something similar that such use is not welcome. Otherwise, what's the point of owning real property if the owner has certain burdens of ownership (property taxes, maybe insurance and costs of upkeep) but can't enjoy the benefit of personal, private use? If I have this wrong, I hope someone will chime in with a reference to an applicable statute.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by P-3 Guy

I am not aware of any part of New Hampshire law that allows for unfettered public access, even for recreational purposes, to private property when the property owner has explicitly told the public by means of posted signs stating "Private Property - Keep Off - No Trespassing" or something similar that such use is not welcome. Otherwise, what's the point of owning real property if the owner has certain burdens of ownership (property taxes, maybe insurance and costs of upkeep) but can't enjoy the benefit of personal, private use? If I have this wrong, I hope someone will chime in with a reference to an applicable statute.

Maybe I wasn't clear: NH common law (link below) allows public use of private land unless appropriately posted.

My point was that people should assume all land is owned/private even if not posted.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...fgfNsiWnKZvwxH

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Maybe I wasn't clear: NH common law (link below) allows public use of private land unless appropriately posted.

My point was that people should assume all land is owned/private even if not posted.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...fgfNsiWnKZvwxH

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Understood, and thank you. Should there be any debate about whether or not Blueberry Island is appropriately posted? An effort is definitely made, but it's not uncommon for signs to be ripped down. ("Signs? What signs?")

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by P-3 Guy

Understood, and thank you. Should there be any debate about whether or not Blueberry Island is appropriately posted? An effort is definitely made, but it's not uncommon for signs to be ripped down. ("Signs? What signs?")

Every time I've been to Blueberry, it's been CLEARLY posted. It's only a few times a summer, though, so I can't attest to 100% of the time.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[Randardo]

Signage and language to the effect of…. Would go a long way to clarifying for all.

Private Property, off limits to Winnipesaukee boaters… No Trespassing with the exception of AMC Staff and guests residing at Three Mile Island per cooperation between Blueberry Island Owners and the AMC.

[tis]

I'm sorry, but this really irritates me. Even if somebody doesn't have signs, it's pretty obvious SOMEBODY owns an island or any land and what makes people think they have a right to use other people's property????? I just don't get this entitlement mentality.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Randardo

Signage and language to the effect of…. Would go a long way to clarifying for all.

Private Property, off limits to Winnipesaukee boaters… No Trespassing with the exception of AMC Staff and guests residing at Three Mile Island per cooperation between Blueberry Island Owners and the AMC.

Oh please. This is America--no one owes you an explanation for their private property.

[Randardo]

PRIVATE PROPERTY
AMC
Appalachian Mountain Club

Private Property Define:

Private property refers to the ownership of property by private parties - essentially anyone or anything other than the government. Private property may consist of real estate, buildings, objects, intellectual property (copyright, patent, trademark, and trade secrets).

This sign alone makes my point, it "appears" to the layman that Blueberry Island is "owned" by the AMC....

This is getting more and more entertaining!

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

I'm sorry, but this really irritates me. Even if somebody doesn't have signs, it's pretty obvious SOMEBODY owns an island or any land and what makes people think they have a right to use other people's property????? I just don't get this entitlement mentality.

That would be State law enshrining a tradition that dates back to colonial times.
I must post my property legally against trespass or it is considered open to non-motorized use trespass. Or I have the option of fencing my entire property... a rather expensive option.

RSA 635:4 defines the legally requirements of posting property.

The other question would be the property tax classification of the island. If the island was in a Current Use II status... very hard to post, as hunting/fishing/scouting has to be allowed with some reasonable exceptions.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Randardo

Signage and language to the effect of…. Would go a long way to clarifying for all.

Private Property, off limits to Winnipesaukee boaters… No Trespassing with the exception of AMC Staff and guests residing at Three Mile Island per cooperation between Blueberry Island Owners and the AMC.

It's been clarified for you. Three Mile Island Camp staff and guests know that they are allowed to use Blueberry Island under an agreement with the owners. If you are not in either of these groups, the numerous signs clearly tell you that you need to stay off the island, and this is all you really need to know. I have given you the courtesy of a full explanation as to how things work, which is more than you are entitled to. Thank you for respecting the wishes of the Blueberry Island owners by staying off the island.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

That would be State law enshrining a tradition that dates back to colonial times.
I must post my property legally against trespass or it is considered open to non-motorized use trespass. Or I have the option of fencing my entire property... a rather expensive option.

RSA 635:4 defines the legally requirements of posting property.

The other question would be the property tax classification of the island. If the island was in a Current Use II status... very hard to post, as hunting/fishing/scouting has to be allowed with some reasonable exceptions.

The island isn't big enough to qualify for current use.

[Randardo]

Keep drinking the AMC Flavor-Aid Brother, congrats on 10 years, hope you got a cool t-shirt!

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Randardo

Keep drinking the AMC Flavor-Aid Brother, congrats on 10 years, hope you got a cool t-shirt!

Don't you worry; what I get for what I do is much better than a t-shirt.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by P-3 Guy

It's been clarified for you. Three Mile Island Camp staff and guests know that they are allowed to use Blueberry Island under an agreement with the owners. If you are not in either of these groups, the numerous signs clearly tell you that you need to stay off the island, and this is all you really need to know. I have given you the courtesy of a full explanation as to how things work, which is more than you are entitled to. Thank you for respecting the wishes of the Blueberry Island owners by staying off the island.

Actually the statement ''Private Property'' does not legally qualify under the statute.
While the written agreement provides the AMC with some management authority over the property, the signage is less than required by statute. RSA 635:4 is pretty specific in that it must state what is not allowed - such as ''No Trespass without the written permission of the AMC".
The SFPNHF has some pretty distinct signage used around their properties, and those they manage, along with even more explicit signage at what would constitute a natural point of entry.

The statute is very hard to prosecute... and an island probably would make it worse... since the "first" offense is seldom even bothered to be ticketed with the violation.

I have found over the years that there will always be that certain percentage of the population that will push the limit beyond common courtesy... which is why we probably have a statute in the first place. Those will be the ones that you'll have an issue with.

[Randardo]

So why bother posting anything and instead allow any and all to use the island? The AMC goes through such trouble to make the property "exclusive" to their guests, gosh it's like we're at a resort.

I've asked all along for the AMC to clearly define the rules, simple request as I see it.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Actually the statement ''Private Property'' does not legally qualify under the statute.
While the written agreement provides the AMC with some management authority over the property, the signage is less than required by statute. RSA 635:4 is pretty specific in that it must state what is not allowed - such as ''No Trespass without the written permission of the AMC".
The SFPNHF has some pretty distinct signage used around their properties, and those they manage, along with even more explicit signage at what would constitute a natural point of entry.

The statute is very hard to prosecute... and an island probably would make it worse... since the "first" offense is seldom even bothered to be ticketed with the violation.

I have found over the years that there will always be that certain percentage of the population that will push the limit beyond common courtesy... which is why we probably have a statute in the first place. Those will be the ones that you'll have an issue with.

You don't know what the full written agreement does (or does not) provide.

The AMC cannot grant island use privileges to third parties.

[John Mercier]

I didn't say I did.
I stated the sign is not a legal posting according to the statute.

It does not define what is prohibited.
It simply states that it is Private Property.
The statute is specific in that the sign must state what is prohibited.
And must include the owner/manager and their address.

[Randardo]

Precisely! NO ONE KNOWS what the agreement says save for the AMC, good heavens we're flirting with ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity.

Why the secret???? Exactly what I asked of Tracy Pizzo who completely dismissed and deflected my questions today... She added the most ignorant and uninformed statement ever... "I've never been out to Blueberry Island, but I know there aren't any issues out there"

Let everyone know what the agreement says and post signs accordingly.

Glad the AMC is taking care of you P-3!

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by Randardo

Precisely! NO ONE KNOWS what the agreement says save for the AMC, good heavens we're flirting with ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity.

Why the secret???? Exactly what I asked of Tracy Pizzo who completely dismissed and deflected my questions today... She added the most ignorant and uninformed statement ever... "I've never been out to Blueberry Island, but I know there aren't any issues out there"

Let everyone know what the agreement says and post signs accordingly.

Glad the AMC is taking care of you P-3!

Why are you pushing this? It's PRIVATE PROPERTY and you don't have permission to use it.

If you want permission to use it, become a Three Mile Island worker or guest.

Otherwise, YOU'RE exactly why so many private properties are no longer accessible by the public—no different than a snowmobiler bypassing closed gates, a mountain biker ignoring trail closed signs, kayakers using an island property for a bathroom, etc.

In fact, in your original letter, even YOU recognize that—even with clear signage—people are still leaving trash, damaging flora, etc.

I really don't understand what you're trying to do here.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[fatlazyless]

I recall from an old Winnipesaukee Forum thread on Three Mile Island, maybe ten or fifteen years ago, it was said that Three Mile Island and a couple small adjoining islands owned by A.M.C. were in current use and paid the town an agreed $20,000./year as a property tax payment for land and buildings for their three(?) islands.

Renaming the Appalachian Mountain Club to be the Appalachian Money Club by Appalachian Trail thru-hikers as they hike through the White Mountain National Forest is a comment sometimes heard on the trail.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

Why are you pushing this? It's PRIVATE PROPERTY and you don't have permission to use it.

If you want permission to use it, become a Three Mile Island worker or guest.

Otherwise, YOU'RE exactly why so many private properties are no longer accessible by the public—no different than a snowmobiler bypassing closed gates, a mountain biker ignoring trail closed signs, kayakers using an island property for a bathroom, etc.

In fact, in your original letter, even YOU recognize that—even with clear signage—people are still leaving trash, damaging flora, etc.

I really don't understand what you're trying to do here.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Actually... in your example.

The snowmobiler and mountain biker trails as described would be legally prohibited under the RSA 635:4 because of the gate and the posting that the trail is closed. They could be cited for a trespass violation.

The kayakers, though not very well-mannered, didn't violate any law... unless the property was legally posted against trespass.

As property owners, it is our responsibility under the law to follow the law as to our intent. We must fence/gate or legally post the prohibition with our name and address.

If they change the sign to meet the legal requirement, LEOs would be able to cite the violation. Without that, someone authorized must verbally inform anyone to enters the property that they must leave... and should they want to press charges need to contact an LEO immediately. The LEO can only act when they witness the trespass.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Actually... in your example.


The snowmobiler and mountain biker trails as described would be legally prohibited under the RSA 635:4 because of the gate and the posting that the trail is closed. They could be cited for a trespass violation.

The kayakers, though not very well-mannered, didn't violate any law... unless the property was legally posted against trespass.

As property owners, it is our responsibility under the law to follow the law as to our intent. We must fence/gate or legally post the prohibition with our name and address.

If they change the sign to meet the legal requirement, LEOs would be able to cite the violation. Without that, someone authorized must verbally inform anyone to enters the property that they must leave... and should they want to press charges need to contact an LEO immediately. The LEO can only act when they witness the trespass.

Yes, John, we get the semantics.

My point is the line between courtesy and legality and why the OP feels he deserves an explanation.

Clearly the owners of Blueberry want people to stay off their property unless given explicit permission as evidenced by the posted signs.

Evidence of why—damage, trash, etc.—has been given.

Whether or not those signs meet the legal requirements should not matter—the intentions are clear, so people should stay out.

My additional belief is that, even without signs, people should assume landowners don't want strangers on their land.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

As property owners, it is our responsibility under the law to follow the law as to our intent. We must fence/gate or legally post the prohibition with our name and address.

If they change the sign to meet the legal requirement, LEOs would be able to cite the violation. Without that, someone authorized must verbally inform anyone to enters the property that they must leave... and should they want to press charges need to contact an LEO immediately. The LEO can only act when they witness the trespass.

Sure, but there is no law requiring them to post anything. If they decide to post then people can be prosecuted, but that is the owner's/AMC's prerogative, not responsibility. This whole idea that the owners or the AMC (also private, BTW) owes anybody anything in this case is some kind of weird socialist BS.

Plus, John, I'm doubly pissed with you--you're supposed to be the conservative, and I'm supposed to be the liberal, haha

[tummyman]

Folks...STOP replies to this thread. All it does is fuel more nonsense from the original OP. He got his answer more than once. Why debate or respond? He apparently has a problem that cannot be solved with respect for others property. And let's not all play lawyer with what signs can or cannot be used. ENOUGH !!!! Just let him go away. The more people respond, the more this goes on and on. Surely there are more important things to do than debate nonsense. Just my opinion....from now on, this thread is not worthy of my time and it should be likewise to others.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Sure, but there is no law requiring them to post anything. If they decide to post then people can be prosecuted, but that is the owner's/AMC's prerogative, not responsibility. This whole idea that the owners or the AMC (also private, BTW) owes anybody anything in this case is some kind of weird socialist BS.

Plus, John, I'm doubly pissed with you--you're supposed to be the conservative, and I'm supposed to be the liberal, haha

It is tradition dating back to the 1600s. Socialism wouldn't even really be a thing for 200 years after that. And it is considered conservative to retain tradition, which is why the law is as it is.

The AMC doesn't get a special set of statutes differing from other landowners. They just now feel the heat of population that farmers have felt for decades.

All attempts to change the posting rule have failed, except for motorized use... which prior to about 2003 was open anywhere that it was not posted prohibited.
That change was a pressure on snowmobiles losing dominance.

[thinkxingu]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Folks...STOP replies to this thread. All it does is fuel more nonsense from the original OP. He got his answer more than once. Why debate or respond? He apparently has a problem that cannot be solved with respect for others property. And let's not all play lawyer with what signs can or cannot be used. ENOUGH !!!! Just let him go away. The more people respond, the more this goes on and on. Surely there are more important things to do than debate nonsense. Just my opinion....from now on, this thread is not worthy of my time and it should be likewise to others.

Thanks for the nudge—you're totally right.

Have a great day, friends!

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[Randardo]

Yep, too exhausting for me as well, I'll go away as well! See you on the lake!
Randy

[ApS]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Folks...STOP replies to this thread. All it does is fuel more nonsense from the original OP. He got his answer more than once. Why debate or respond? He apparently has a problem that cannot be solved with respect for others property. And let's not all play lawyer with what signs can or cannot be used. ENOUGH !!!! Just let him go away. The more people respond, the more this goes on and on. Surely there are more important things to do than debate nonsense. Just my opinion....from now on, this thread is not worthy of my time and it should be likewise to others.

Just shut up?

[longislander]

In agreement with Tummyman.

However, a comment on the statements regarding the legal issue of postings etc.

"Trespassing" is not just about "posting"; cf. Title 635: UNAUTHORIZED ENTRIES, especially RSA 635:2 I. A person is guilty of criminal trespass if, knowing that he is not licensed or privileged to do so, he enters or remains in any place.

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa.../635/635-2.htm

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa.../635/635-4.htm

https://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa...C-LXII-635.htm

Hopefully this won't trigger another long debate, on how to define trespass.

[longislander]

RSA 635:4 Prescribed Manner of Posting. – A person may post his land to prohibit criminal trespass ...

The statute doesn't say "shall".

[John Mercier]

You may... but if you don't... the LEO will not write the violation.

You can permanently sit someone on the property and tell them they have to leave...

Should an LEO write a violation, the court is going to question why post signs and not bother to follow the posting requirements. At that point to secure the violation, the AMC may be required to send someone to testify in the case, and provide the written documentation that allows them to restrict others.

So much easier just to sign as prescribe by law.

[Winilyme]

Originally Posted by tummyman

Folks...STOP replies to this thread. All it does is fuel more nonsense from the original OP. He got his answer more than once. Why debate or respond? He apparently has a problem that cannot be solved with respect for others property. And let's not all play lawyer with what signs can or cannot be used. ENOUGH !!!! Just let him go away. The more people respond, the more this goes on and on. Surely there are more important things to do than debate nonsense. Just my opinion....from now on, this thread is not worthy of my time and it should be likewise to others.

But this wouldn’t be a proper forum post if it didn’t eventually devolve into some form of bickering.

[John Mercier]

Because none of them ever look at the history of posting and the outcomes.

The farmer on the Rockingham Recreational trail, that decided ''Private Property'' as enough. But now has a felony on his record.

Even more recent and local, Ward Bird that was sure he was innocent... until he was prosecute, found guilty by 12 residents, and sentenced with a felony.
If it wasn't for a ''liberal'' Governor; he would have sat in prison for years.

They don't even consider the recent attempt to lower the standards for legal posting... that has the support of private property owners everywhere.

Heck, if no one question the posting of my woodlot, I would have never known that my neighbor took it upon himself to make that decision without any authority whatsoever.

Legal posting as prescribed tends to end the question.

[longislander]

You may... but if you don't... the LEO will not write the violation.

You can permanently sit someone on the property and tell them they have to leave...

Should an LEO write a violation, the court is going to question why post signs and not bother to follow the posting requirements. At that point to secure the violation, the AMC may be required to send someone to testify in the case, and provide the written documentation that allows them to restrict others.

So much easier just to sign as prescribe by law.

Is everyone supposed to know what is meant by "LEO" as in presumably in "Law Enforcement Officer" ? Which ... Fish and Game? FBI? Local town cop? What stops someone from filing suit in court themselves?

What makes you think LEO, or JANE or HARRY or whomever will not do their job? What makes you think a court will not read, interpret law, and act accordingly?

Two separate statutes with separate legal strategies, and ease of execution.

A "selfie" or video with warning not to trespass, especially with a witness, will be a quick victory to prevail in court. Repeat trespass will enhance quick court decision.

Good thing nothing in this thread or website is legal advice, since only attorney's can give legal advice under penalty of UPL (Unauthorized Practice of Law). You can Google this as well.

No need for an attorney. Go Pro Se. A lot of of us do for these trivial court cases.

[John Mercier]

Because you can't write a ticket.
And if you are standing there... and ask them to leave... they have no longer committed an offense.
They have to remain after you have asked the to leave.

The posted sign is ambiguous. It is the action and vocal command of the agent communicating that they must leave.

A camera picking up an intruder with a sign that directly prohibits the trespass. That would not need private prosecution, nor open the door to civil forfeiture, because private prosecution does not inherently grant prosecutorial immunity. They would just present it to the local police, F&G, or any of the others... since most have the ability charge. Their jurisdiction was broadened.

[longislander]

You don't need to write "a ticket" ... you're not taking a bus or train ride!

You file a Civil Complaint (formerly called a Civil Writ or Civil Writ of Summons) and is not difficult. Electronic filing has made the process much simpler for the filer.

Not one instance of trespass, but subsequent trespass after being informed not to come on the property. Most folks will honor the request. If not, then that's what the courts are for.

I didn't reference "the sign". My initial comment was simply to point out another statute other then posting. Posting is a subset to avoid trespass, and honor the property owner's request.

A camera picking up an intruder with a sign that directly prohibits the trespass. That would not need private prosecution, nor open the door to civil forfeiture, because private prosecution does not inherently grant prosecutorial immunity. They would just present it to the local police, F&G, or any of the others... since most have the ability charge. Their jurisdiction was broadened.

Your kidding ... right ... whatever it's supposed to mean.

Additionally, care would have to taken for cameras and electronic evidence in case of accusations of Photoshop and other means to falsify evidence. Cops will not pursue a trespass charge unless harm or damages is involved, even if they have a clue who the trespasser is.

[Randardo]

The Cowardly Lion?

I really want this thread to end, I think I made my point, but here we are.... as the one who started this discussion, I come back to my original point, something no one "shall" take on, clear language POSTED on, and regarding the use of, Blueberry Island....

Such a simple request, something AMC (Nicky) nor 10 yr anniversary guy couldn't grasp.... Clarification for all and once and for all.

Private Property, off limits to Winnipesaukee boaters… No Trespassing with the exception of AMC Staff and guests residing at Three Mile Island per cooperation between Blueberry Island Owners and the AMC.

Side note, something I find rather interesting, no one here "signs" their name after a post.... Drop a turd, run and hide....?

Let's drop this subject once and for all and focus our attention elsewhere.

Randy

[Randardo]

With the exception of John Mercier... I'd have to imagine that's truly who he is.... and with that... John, Randy Langer, pleasure to meet you, enjoyed your comments and insight.

[longislander]

Is this you?
Randolph Noel Langer, 59
RESIDES IN NAVARRE, FL
Lived In Berlin MA, Newport News VA, Meredith NH, Carrollton VA
Related To Cornelia Langer, Brigitte Langer, Horst Langer

Maybe that's why the webmaster doesn't require "names"; real, fake, or perceived!

My name is Joe Cormier, if I'm your reference. If you have any clue about Moultonborough, and are cognizant of goings-on in Moultonborough, you'll know who I am.

How many other posters on this site do not include their names,or rather how many do include their names.

"I really want this thread to end, I think I made my point, but ...

"
How many times is "I" used! Says something about the poster. Maybe "but" should have two tt's!

Side note, something I find rather interesting, no one here "signs" their name after a post.... Drop a turd, run and hide....?

Let's drop this subject once and for all and focus our attention elsewhere.

Randy

Pearls of wisdom ... ehhh!

Want the thread to end ... stop posting, not that anyone cares what you want, anyway.

[thinkxingu]

I don't typically share my name for a few reasons, not least of which is that whenever we go out, the people always shout. If you MUST know, though, it's John Schmidt. It's a not uncommon name; in fact, just last week while signing in for a wait at Canoe, the host said it was his name, too.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

[Randardo]

obviously not the best policy here....

[mofn]

We had a big run in there 7/6? Stopped that night 7.30ish to let some young kids get in the water we had out fishing. NOT on land NOR anchored to land when the A.M.C. “sea dog” showed up w/ a boat load of millennial’s and a overloaded Boston Whaler w/ same. It started as a screaming match about it was posted and they were they to save the island and clean it up with the owner’s permission.
We told them get bent we were not on the island in the water.
When they went ashore…no rakes, shovels, trash bags, but was carrying a large square object in a bag like carrier?
Never asked us after that contentious showdown if we wanted to help clean up.
We were there swimming and on the boat fishing for 30 minutes? Backside of the island (Bear side) they were not cleaning up it was a drinking party! Witnessed by 4 adults & 4 kids. And A.M.C. if you are going to claim you were looking at the stars put the small telescopes to your eyes and not your mouth.
To be properly posted when you Google in N.H….. owners name and address on the sign, which it’s not.

[Randardo]

I posted seeking clarification from the AMC regarding Blueberry Island and it's culminated with "Joe" Google searching my name and posting all my information on this forum..... Something very disturbing about that...

Wish you all the best Joe.....

Horst Langer, WWII Veteran, Dead
Brigitte F Langer, Dead
Randolph N Langer, Desert Storm Veteran, Iraqi Freedom Veteran, 24 yrs of honorable military service.

Anything else Joe? What else would you like to exploit and destroy about me or my family?

[longislander]

"Joe" Google searching my name and posting all my information on this forum..... Something very disturbing about that...

It's called ...TODAY!
Didn't bother to gather "all" your info. Don't care about it.

Thanks for confirming it is you.

If you are not aware that a simple, one-time name search produces a bunch of data, then you should refrain from your attacks on others. The giveaway was "Meredith".

In Kind:
Joe Cormier
Vietnam Vet. In-country May 1967-Feb. 1969
Served in the 189th Assault Helicopter Co. 52nd Combat Aviation Battalion
MOS-Avionics plus a UH-1 door-gunner.
Because of multiple MOS's (school and job trained) also spent a couple of months, (Nov.-Dec 1067) TDY, with the 5th Special Forces group at FOB2, Kontum in the Central Highlands; Missions into Cambodia and Laos where the papers said there were no US troops, just before the Tet offensive in Jan. 1968; base camp was Holloway in Pleiku, II corps Central Highlands.

Beginning of 1969 also worked TDY with the White Horse division ROKS, Republic of Korea (South Korea) just before heading back stateside and Honorable discharge, with commendations.

There's a lot more to my data and could care less who searches it. My three degrees in business, including MBA, paralegal certification, and a few bucks can get me a coffe at Dunkies.

Have a great life. I'm enjoying mine.

[pondguy]

WOW, this is a fun read......NOT!

[camp guy]

This thread has really sunk well below civility. Is everyone so mad at the world that their answer is to beat up on fellow Forum members. Give it a rest, please.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by longislander

You don't need to write "a ticket" ... you're not taking a bus or train ride!

You file a Civil Complaint (formerly called a Civil Writ or Civil Writ of Summons) and is not difficult. Electronic filing has made the process much simpler for the filer.

Not one instance of trespass, but subsequent trespass after being informed not to come on the property. Most folks will honor the request. If not, then that's what the courts are for.

I didn't reference "the sign". My initial comment was simply to point out another statute other then posting. Posting is a subset to avoid trespass, and honor the property owner's request.



Your kidding ... right ... whatever it's supposed to mean.

Additionally, care would have to taken for cameras and electronic evidence in case of accusations of Photoshop and other means to falsify evidence. Cops will not pursue a trespass charge unless harm or damages is involved, even if they have a clue who the trespasser is.

A civil complaint gets you nothing except wasting your money and time sitting in court.
Most logical landowners don't want to waste any time in court, any cost associated with court, nor put any risk upon themselves.

[ITD]

Hmmm, apparently some of you have never posted to an internet forum before. The only thing you control about the conversation is your decision to push the "submit reply" button. That's it. Use that button wisely if your skin is thin.